From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Buesch Subject: Re: proposal for new wireless configuration API Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 00:02:42 +0200 Message-ID: <200608190002.42436.mb@bu3sch.de> References: <1155655728.17742.30.camel@ux156> <1155885125.3425.11.camel@ux156> <20060818212941.GB28711@p15091797.pureserver.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from static-ip-62-75-166-246.inaddr.intergenia.de ([62.75.166.246]:44236 "EHLO bu3sch.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751509AbWHRWDU (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:03:20 -0400 To: Ulrich Kunitz In-Reply-To: <20060818212941.GB28711@p15091797.pureserver.info> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Friday 18 August 2006 23:29, Ulrich Kunitz wrote: > On 06-08-18 09:12 Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 01:29 +0200, Ulrich Kunitz wrote: > > > Or are here people, who > > > really want to freely transmit on all frequencies their RF might > > > be able to generate? > > > > Yes :P > > Some amateur radio people asked me about extending the spectrum a bit to > > the top (apparently they're allowed to use the band just above the ISM > > band as well). > > I had some discussions with radio amateurs about the RFs in the > ZD1211 devices. Even if I could transmit in their required bands, > the RFs are so WLAN specific, that they don't fulfill their > requirements. It's really funny, if somebody explains to you that > these chips are of extremely low quality. I always try to explain > to them that the complete devices are sold for only 17 Euros > including VAT. You cannot expect for this price the quality > required for long range transmissions at these high frequencies. > > I support the idea that radio amateurs should create their own > patches if they need it. Supporting the frequencies in the > interface, is a typical feature used by less than 1% of the user > base, but would cost more than 80% of the effort. We should also not > do anything, which would raise the impression, that we want to > ignore regulatory rules. I second that. We should not allow to drive devices outside of the specs. If someone wants to do this, he should be able to apply a one-liner patch to tune to some different frequency. ;) > > However, I don't think we need to cater them in the API. I think they > > ought to be able to live with kernel patches since we don't really know > > how far up the frequency on say the bcm43xx can go anyway before the > > card breaks/malfunctions. > > Do they have a separate RF? They data sheets are usually > available, even if the not always explain the register > programming. We currently know 6 different radio chips used by bcm43xx: http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/RadioID AFAIK the chip is from broadcom, too. I don't like to check now, as that would require to disassemble my AP and look at the chip. ;) But I'm pretty sure. There is no datasheet available for the chip. At least nobody was able to get or found one so far... . -- Greetings Michael.